*ping*
“The kids on my team, it was terrible,” Davis told the TV station. “Their faces, just pure disgust, pure fear.”
Big, hairy sweaty moobs?
I guess the girls figure if they have to wear tops then the boys do too. Kinda like the “girls” in Sweden making it a law that men have to pee sitting down too. Lol, something tells me the “girls” are not going to like it when all the men in their nation are feminized and the girls have to fight the wars.
I just left a thread where women were protesting for the right to dress like sluts and to be free from the danger of rape. And here the females are destroying a man’s career for something that has always been considered normal and is far from slutty.
I suspect, uncomfortable isn't the correct word. Ever heard of hormones? More like, "O-M-G!!!!!!!!! (giggle, giggle) Did you see what a hunk Scotty was today without his shirt!!!!! He's soooooo, HOT!!!!!" Sounds to me like the athletic director might have some underlying issues what with his over-reaction.
From the movie: Mr. Roberts
Where are your shirts?
Where are your shirts?
-Captain—
-Shut up!
Where are your shirts?
Get those shirts on and be quick about it!
l’m sorry, put your shirts on.
Just one minute, Mister!
Who’s captain of this vessel?
That is the rankest piece of insubordination
l ever seen.
You’ve been getting pretty smart lately,
buttering up to Mr. Roberts here.
But this time you have gone too far!
And l’m making you a little promise.
l am never going to forget this.
And as a starter, you’re on report.
Every one of you who appeared on deck
without a shirt, on report!
You’re not putting these men on report.
-What do you mean l’m not?
-l’m responsible. l gave them permission.
You disobeyed my standing order?
It's tough to imagine 2011 teenage girls complaining about shirtless athletic males but any thing is possible.
I'd have less trouble believing a gay teammate complaining about discomfort or distraction.
As far as I can tell, the Fogel guy committed civil rights violations against the male students under in loci parentis , and by not giving cause for firing the coach, probably violated labor relations laws in Massachussetts.
If the students press charges, the Fogel guy and the school district is screwed. NO court is going to overturn community standards on such a flimflam case, meaning Fogel would lose if the case isn’t thrown out.
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter272/Section31
“Nudity’’, uncovered or less than opaquely covered human genitals, pubic areas, the human female breast below a point immediately above the top of the areola, or the covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state. For purposes of this definition, a female breast is considered uncovered if the nipple or areola only are covered.
And a footnote from a legal paper regarding this:
10. Dydyn v. Dep’t of Liquor Control, 531 A.2d 170, 175 (Conn. App. Ct. 1987). This is
commonly known as the “real difference” doctrine. See generally Virginia F. Milstead,
Forbidding Female Toplessness: Why “Real Difference” Jurisprudence Lacks “Support” and
What Can Be Done About It, 36 U. TOL. L. REV. 273 (2005). For other instances in which courts
have found that “real differences” between women’s and men’s breasts render a sex-based
toplessness statute substantially related to the government’s legitimate interests, see, for example,
Hodel, 683 F. Supp. at 300 (finding that the sex-based classification was substantially related to
the government’s interests because “[c]ommunity standards do not deem the exposure of males’
breasts offensive, therefore, the state does not have an interest in preventing exposure of the
males’ breasts” (citing Craft, 509 N.Y.S.2d at 1010)) and City of Seattle v. Buchanan, 584 P.2d
918, 922 (Wash. 1978) (“[S]exual differences (the sexual arousal commonly associated with the
female but not the male breasts) bears a direct relationship to the legislative purpose of the
preservation of public decency and order.”).